Skip to content
Network for Civic Action at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Network for Civic Action

NETWORK FOR CIVIC ACTION advocates for the protection of democracy and encourages civic engagement.

$114k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$64k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2025.

Public Benefit$3.8MCivil Rights$1.3MEnvironment$556kScience & Tech$87kSocial Science$65kHuman Services$56k
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$64,062
Median grant
1
States reached
$406k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WORKING AMERICA ACTION$64,062
FAIR DEMOCRACY$50,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY22–24, $256k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%ACCELERATE ACTION INC: $56k → 16%ACCELERATE ACTION: $200k → 16%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.2M · 6 repeat orgs$151k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +631% since the first grant, against +49% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
4

Total granted

$5.2M
$101k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+631%
+49%

Still filing today

67%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 56% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’22’23’24’25
Public BenefitCivil RightsHuman ServicesOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • WA
    WORKING AMERICA
    2× · 2022–2023 · $3.4M · revenue +202%
  • WA
    WORKING AMERICA ACTION
    2× · 2024–2025 · $1.2M
  • AA
    ACCELERATE ACTION INC
    2× · 2022–2024 · $256k · revenue +631%

Funded once

  • CD
    COMMON DEFENSE EDUCATION FUND INCgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue +285%
  • AF
    AB FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2024 · $25k · revenue 0%
  • VA
    VOTEVETS ACTION FUND INCgraduated
    one grant, 2024 · $15k · revenue +49%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
One for Democracy Action Fund

One for democracy unlocks resources to build a healthy democracy by fostering meaningful relationships between philanthropists and the democracy leaders of our time.

—
2
Workers Defense Action Fund

Workers defense action fund is a member-led organization that mobilizes latine voters in texas to build governing power and fight for worker and immigrant justice.

Civil Rights
3
Fdd Action

FDD Action is a non-profit, non-partisan 504(c)4 organization established to advocate for effective policies to promote U.S. National Security and defend free nations.

Community Improvement
4
Register America

The organization is founded for social welfare purposes, including assisting with voter registration and advocating for policies which lead to increased voter registration in the united states.

—
5
Voteamerica

The mission of voteamerica is to strengthen united states democracy by increasing voter turnout.

Civil Rights
6
Defend the Vote Action Fund

To sustain and support the prioritization of comprehensive voting rights and democracy reform legislation at all levels of government.

—
7
Democracy Works Inc

The organization's mission is to leverage web-technologies to improve civic engagement and voter education.

Civil Rights
8
Fair Fight Action Inc

Fair fight action promotes fair elections in georgia and around the country, encourages voter participation in elections, educates voters about elections and their voting rights, and advocates for progressive issues.

Education
9
America Votes

The Organization was established to coordinate and promote progressive issues, policies, initiatives, and referenda, and to pursue electoral reform that expands access to the ballot.

Community Improvement
10
New American Leaders Action Fund Inc

New american leaders action fund (nalaf) is building a democracy that represents and includes all people by engaging new voters, supporting new americans as they run for office, and expanding civic engagement.

Civil Rights
11
All Americans Vote

All Americans Vote aims to motivate underrepresented Americans to engage in the most patriotic of exercises - voting!

Civil Rights
12
Employ America Action Fund

Employ america action fund is organized and operated exclusively for social welfare purposes including, but not limited to, developing and advocating for legislation, regulations, and government programs to promote better labor market…

Employment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Working America; the most unlike its peers is National Redistricting Action Fund. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

10 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 10 of the 12 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
5/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WORKING AMERICA: $3,432,563 · OtherWORKING AMERICAWORKING AMERICA ACTION: $1,187,221 · OtherWORKING AMERICA ACTION+4 more: $213,000 · OtherSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $555,971 · EnvironmentSIXTEEN TH…ACCELERATE ACTION INC: $256,353 · Human ServicesNATIONAL REDISTRICTING ACTION FUND: $100,000 · Civil RightsFAIR DEMOCRACY: $50,000 · Civil RightsCOMMON DEFENSE EDUCATION FUND INC: $50,000 · Public BenefitAB FOUNDATION: $25,000 · Public Benefit
Other$4,832,784Environment$555,971Human Services$256,353Civil Rights$150,000Public Benefit$75,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWORKING AMERICA: $3,432,563 over 2y, 10% of budgetWORKING AMERICA ACTION: $1,187,221 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND: $555,971 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetACCELERATE ACTION INC: $256,353 over 2y, 7.0% of budgetNATIONAL REDISTRICTING ACTION FUND: $100,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetCOMMON DEFENSE EDUCATION FUND INC: $50,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetFAIR DEMOCRACY: $50,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetAB FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVOTEVETS ACTION FUND INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetVOTO LATINO INC: $11,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Focus for Democracy A…National Education As…Tides AdvocacySixteen Thirty FundFund for a Better Fut…America VotesOpen Society Action F…Tides FoundationEvidence for ImpactFuture Forward USA Ac…American Federation o…Hopewell Fund
Focus for Democracy ActionDC17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Focus for Democracy Action · National Education Association of the United States · Tides Advocacy · Sixteen Thirty Fund · Fund for a Better Future Inc · America Votes · Open Society Action Fund Inc · Tides Foundation · Evidence for Impact · Future Forward USA Action · American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees · Hopewell Fund

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Network for Civic Action funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Network for Civic Action. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Network for Civic Action?

    Find your warmest path to Network for Civic Action through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 12 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Network for Civic Action’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home